Shop
Shop

The Strategic Advantage of Western European & Algerian Blood Types in Conventional Warfare

ludiusvox

Western Europe, is home to many people over the millennia, who form the fabric of the nations of Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. These people although mostly short in stature, have some hidden biological advantages for self defense to other countries.

Small populations of Western Europe, such as the Gaelic, Gaul, Celtic, and Basque tribe, as well as Algeria indigenous in the Atlas Mountains, have the ability to fight an occupying army through modern blood transfusion technologies. Gaelic Scotland, Gaulish, Brittany, as well as the Basque people of Bordeaux have large populations of universal donors. Universal donors means that this allows the UK, France, and Spain domestic population, capabilities of hiring armies of populations throughout the world as mercenaries, and have a universal combat blood donation, to help people from dying from bullet wounds, and shrapnel, giving a genetic advantage in warfare through universal blood type donor banks.

Blood transfusion technology was fully discovered during WWII. This blood type antigen system, allows the local population to donate blood and support soldiers on the front, or in resistance asymmetrical forces. The French Resistance army is a similar type of asymmetrical warfare. The French Resistance Army, escaped to the UK and began fighting with the UK regulars, while some stayed in Southern France, and through asymmetrical warfare, were able to win a long hard 6 year victory.

Blood transfusion technology from Western European donor O- populations, allows critical battlefield medical aid and life saving technology, which can amplify resistance capabilities of invaders. This ancient blood type is a genetic advantage in strategic warfare, allowing the French, UK, Spain, Algeria and the USA to have multi-ethnic armies which can fight foreign invaders.

If the USA begins to fight a war with the Iranian revolutionary Guard 2025-2030, the Western Europeans it will be necessary for blood donations, to prevent coalition soldiers from dying.

Key Points

  • Research suggests scientists are working on converting blood types A, B, and AB into universal donor type O using enzymes.
  • It seems likely that enzymes from gut bacteria, like Akkermansia muciniphila, can remove antigens to make blood universally compatible.
  • The evidence leans toward significant progress, but challenges remain, such as ensuring safety for transfusions.
  • There are multiple publications, including recent studies from 2019 and 2024, detailing these advancements.

Overview

Scientists are exploring ways to create universal donor blood, which can be transfused into anyone, regardless of their blood type. Typically, type O negative is the universal donor, but research is focused on converting other types (A, B, and AB) into this universal type by removing specific antigens using enzymes. This could help address shortages and improve blood bank logistics.

Research Findings

The research involves using enzymes to strip away A and B antigens from red blood cells, making them compatible with all recipients, similar to type O. Recent studies, particularly from 2019 and 2024, have shown promising results using enzymes from gut bacteria, with ongoing efforts to refine the process for broader application.

Publications

Several key studies have been published, providing detailed insights into this research. These include articles from Nature Microbiology in 2019 and 2024, which discuss enzyme systems and their effectiveness in converting blood types.

Survey Note: Detailed Examination of Research on Universal Donor Blood Conversion

This note provides a comprehensive overview of the current research landscape concerning the conversion of blood types A, B, and AB into universal donor type O, focusing on enzymatic methods and associated publications. The aim is to synthesize available information for a thorough understanding, suitable for academic and professional audiences.

Background on Blood Types and Universal Donation

Blood types are classified into A, B, AB, and O, with an additional Rh factor determining positive or negative status. Universal donor blood, typically type O negative, lacks A, B, and Rh antigens, making it safe for transfusion into any recipient. However, the demand for O negative blood often exceeds supply, prompting research into converting other blood types to universal donors. This is particularly crucial in emergency situations where blood typing is not feasible.

Historical Context and Research Evolution

The quest for universal donor blood has evolved through several generations of research, each building on previous findings:

  • First Generation (1980s): Early efforts, led by Goldstein et al., demonstrated the feasibility of converting B-type blood to O using coffee bean α-galactosidase. This method required large enzyme quantities (2 g per packed RBC bag, or 6 mg/ml for 80% hematocrit) and operated at a low pH of 5.7. Human trials showed normal RBC half-life with small volumes (5 ml) of converted blood, later scaling to 200-600 ml without adverse effects, as documented in references from the period.
  • Second Generation (2007): Liu et al. identified new enzymes, including α-N-acetylgalactosaminidases and α-galactosidases from families GH109 and GH110, which function effectively at physiological pH (7). These enzymes enabled conversions of A and B types with reduced enzyme amounts (300 μg/ml for A RBCs, 2 mg per unit for B RBCs) in low ionic strength buffers, marking a significant improvement in efficiency.
  • Third Generation (2019): Rahfeld et al. discovered a two-enzyme system comprising GalNAc deacetylase and GH36 galactosaminidase, derived from the human gut microbiome. This system required 15-30 times less enzyme than previous methods (as little as 1 mg per unit) and was effective under standard and whole blood conditions, enhancing practicality for clinical use.
  • Recent Advances (2024): The latest research, published in Nature Microbiology, utilized 23 glycosyl hydrolases from Akkermansia muciniphila, a gut bacterium known for breaking down mucosal sugar structures. This study identified enzyme combinations that not only remove A and B antigens but also their extended carbohydrate variants, previously unrecognized as barriers to transfusion safety. This approach significantly improved compatibility with group O plasmas compared to earlier methods.

Current Research and Methodologies

The 2024 study, led by researchers at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and Lund University, tested these enzymes on hundreds of blood samples, achieving promising results for group B conversion, with ongoing work to address the more complex group A conversion. The enzymes target extended blood group antigens, potentially reducing logistical challenges and costs in blood banking, increasing supply, and minimizing waste.

Structural analyses conducted in this study identified a previously unknown putative carbohydrate-binding module in two B-converting enzymes, enhancing understanding of the enzymatic mechanism. Data from this research, including atomic coordinates, are deposited in the Protein Data Bank, with accessions such as AmGH110A (8PVS, Protein Data Bank), AmGH20A-GalNAc (8PXT, Protein Data Bank), and others, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite progress, challenges remain. Low-level agglutination in cross-matching, observed in 20% of A and 40% of O sera, suggests residual antigens or antigen rearrangement, necessitating further clinical trials. A Phase 1 trial (NCT00261274, ClinicalTrials.gov) is referenced, indicating ongoing efforts to validate safety and efficacy. Additionally, potential applications extend to organ transplantation, where reducing ABO incompatibility could improve outcomes.

A new joint project, funded for 3.5 years as of the latest reports, aims to refine the enzyme systems, particularly for group A blood, with funding from sources like the Independent Research Fund Denmark and the Swedish Research Council. Clinical trials are essential for commercial application, and the research community is focused on addressing remaining obstacles to achieve the ultimate goal of universal blood production.

Blood Type Distribution and Implications

In Scandinavia, where some of this research is based, blood type distribution shows A at 40-45% (majority RhD positive, 10-15% RhD negative), O at ~40%, B at ~10%, and AB at ~5%. Converting A and B types to O could significantly alleviate supply constraints, especially given the high demand for O negative blood, which constitutes only about 7% of the population in the U.S. and is critical for emergencies.

Publications and Citations

The following publications are central to this research and provide detailed insights:

These studies collectively underscore the trajectory toward practical universal donor blood, with ongoing efforts to overcome remaining challenges.

Key Citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country

Applied Example of Blood Transfusion Technology in the Ukrainian-Russian war (2014-2025)

Key Points

  • Research suggests over 46,000 Ukrainian and around 105,000 Russian military personnel have been killed in action since 2014, with estimates varying widely.
  • It seems likely that Ukraine has around 370,000 military wounded, while Russia has about 550,000, based on recent reports.
  • The evidence leans toward over 16,000 civilians killed in Ukraine and around 7,000 in Russia-related areas, including separatists.
  • About 50% of wounded Ukrainian soldiers return to the battlefield, while Russia claims 96%, though this is controversial and likely exaggerated.
  • North Korea is not a direct belligerent, with no reported casualties, only alleged arms supply to Russia.

Military Involvement and Casualties

The Ukrainian conflict, spanning 2014 to 2025, primarily involves Ukraine and Russia, with significant military and civilian impacts. Research suggests Ukraine has seen over 46,000 military personnel killed in action, including about 4,400 from the Donbas conflict (2014-2021) and over 43,000 from the full-scale invasion (2022-2024), with numbers likely higher by April 2025. Russia’s confirmed military deaths are around 105,000, with estimates reaching up to 230,000, reflecting the intensity of the conflict. Military wounded figures show Ukraine with approximately 370,000 and Russia with around 550,000, based on recent official and independent estimates.

Civilian Impact

Civilian casualties are significant, with evidence leaning toward over 16,000 killed in Ukraine, including 3,106 from 2014-2021 and 12,910 from 2022-2025, as reported by OHCHR. For Russia, about 652 civilians in Russia proper and around 6,500 separatists killed in Donbas add to the toll, highlighting the broader human cost.

Return to Battlefield

About 50% of wounded Ukrainian soldiers return to active duty, as stated by President Zelenskyy in December 2024. Russia claims a 96% return rate, but this is controversial, likely exaggerated, and lacks independent verification, reflecting differing approaches to military recovery.

North Korea’s Role

North Korea is not a direct belligerent, with no reported casualties. Allegations of arms supply to Russia exist, but no military involvement is confirmed, limiting its impact on casualty figures.

Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Ukrainian War Belligerents (2014-2025)

This detailed analysis examines the casualties and involvement of Ukraine, Russia, and North Korea in the Ukrainian conflict from 2014 to 2025, focusing on military killed in action (KIA), wounded in action (WIA), civilian deaths, and the percentage of wounded returning to the battlefield. The data is drawn from authoritative sources, including official statements, international reports, and independent analyses, with an awareness of the complexities and controversies surrounding casualty figures in active conflicts.

Context and Scope

The Russo-Ukrainian War, beginning with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and escalating into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, has resulted in significant casualties. The period from 2014 to 2021 covers the Donbas conflict, while 2022 to 2025 reflects the intensified phase. North Korea’s role is limited to alleged arms supply, with no direct military engagement, as confirmed by available reports.

Data Collection and Sources

The analysis relies on data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and independent estimates from organizations like BBC News Russian, Mediazona, and Meduza. These sources provide a mix of confirmed figures and estimates, acknowledging the challenges of verifying casualty numbers during ongoing warfare. The current date, April 26, 2025, informs the use of the most recent data available.

Detailed Casualty Figures

Ukraine

  • Military KIA: The conflict has seen significant military losses for Ukraine. From 2014 to 2021, during the Donbas conflict, approximately 4,400 Ukrainian fighters were killed, as reported by OHCHR Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. From February 2022 to December 2024, President Zelenskyy announced 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed, primarily during the full-scale invasion Kyiv reveals total Ukraine casualties in Putin’s war for first time. By February 2025, estimates suggest over 46,000, reflecting ongoing losses. For the total period (2014-2025), the figure is approximately >46,000, acknowledging potential underreporting for early 2025.
  • Military WIA: Wounded figures are largely from the full-scale invasion, with Zelenskyy stating 370,000 wounded as of December 2024 Kyiv reveals total Ukraine casualties in Putin’s war for first time. Earlier periods (2014-2021) lack specific WIA data, but the intensity suggests lower numbers, so the total is approximated at ~370,000 for 2014-2025, mainly post-2022.
  • Civilians Killed: OHCHR recorded 3,106 civilian fatalities from April 2014 to December 2021 and 12,910 from February 2022 to March 2025, totaling ~16,016 for the period Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. This figure is considered conservative, with potential for higher actual numbers.
  • % WIA Returning: Zelenskyy stated that approximately 50% of wounded soldiers return to active duty, based on recovery and reintegration efforts Wounded Ukrainian soldiers are returning to the battlefield as heavy casualties shrink platoons. This is supported by reports of amputees and veterans returning, though exact figures vary.

Russia

North Korea

  • North Korea is not a direct belligerent in the conflict. Allegations of supplying arms to Russia exist, but no confirmed reports of North Korean military personnel involvement or casualties were found Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Thus, all figures for North Korea are N/A.

Table of Casualties (2014-2025)

Below is a consolidated table summarizing the data for each belligerent, acknowledging the periods and sources:

CountryMilitary KIAMilitary WIACivilian deaths% WIA returning
Russia105,000-230,000550,0007,15220%-30% (UK intel)
Ukraine>46,000~370,000~16,016~50%
North KoreaN/AN/AN/AN/A

Methodological Considerations

  • The figures for military KIA and WIA are based on a combination of official statements and independent estimates, with Ukraine’s figures from Zelenskyy and Russia’s from BBC/Mediazona and Meduza. Civilian figures rely on OHCHR reports, which are considered authoritative but may underreport due to access issues.
  • The percentage of wounded returning is based on Zelenskyy’s statement for Ukraine and a Russian official claim for Russia, with the latter treated with caution due to potential bias.
  • North Korea’s exclusion as a direct belligerent is based on the absence of casualty data and confirmed military involvement, focusing on its alleged support role.

Controversies and Uncertainties

  • Russian casualty figures are highly debated, with official numbers often underreported and independent estimates varying widely. The 96% return rate claimed by Russia is particularly controversial, likely reflecting propaganda rather than reality.
  • Ukrainian figures, while more transparent, are also subject to secrecy, with Zelenskyy’s statements providing the most recent official data but potentially incomplete for early 2025.
  • Civilian casualty counts may be higher than reported, especially in contested areas, due to challenges in verification.

Conclusion

This shows that blood transfusion technologies and the blood drive and blood bank heavily favors universal donor countries, bio-nanotechnology attempts of chemical processing for donor blood have thus failed, Western Red Cross blood drives and medical technologies have given higher return rates of wounded soldiers, and the nations with the most Universal blood donors will win wars of attrition from keeping soldiers returning to the battlefield.

Key Citations

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *